Honestly. I try to tell the newspaper kids I talk to about this kind of stuff all the time: someone criticizes you, why get into a two-week shitfight over where your critic went to school, who he “really” is, whether he’s taken as many classes as you, etc etc? It just makes you look like a petty asshole. Why not instead focus on the substance of the criticism: Does this person, even if he goes by iLikeBigJugs553, have a point about some fact or interpretation of fact that I have published?
If so, either incorporate that into your next bit of work, correct the current post, or just resolve not to be such a dumbass in the future. If not, then ignore it because nobody cares. I mean, I know we bag on the Freepi a lot around here but during that week when they all called me an ugly whore, would it have benefitted me in any way to post sexy photos of myself and then demand they do the same so we could see who truly lived up to standards of physical beauty? So much easier to point, mock, and move on.
You hear this constantly from mainstream media pundits sniping back at bloggers, too: Oh yeah, well who are YOU, Mr. Imginary Internet Person, to point out the sky is not purple as I quoted Newt Gingrich saying it is but is in fact blue? You don’t have a paycheck! I mean, so why? The sky is either blue or it isn’t. I do not understand the impulse to prolong one’s embarrassment at making a mistake by wanking about the credentials of the person who pointed it out. Except for that, of course, it makes the argument about something other than how you screwed up.
Take what’s useful about the criticism you get and use it, even if it comes from some anonymous asshole on the Internet. Shove the rest.